Boris Johnson: I wish to begin by congratulating Iraq’s security forces on liberating Mosul from the pitiless grasp of Daesh. The flag of Iraq flies once more in the country’s second city and I pay tribute to the pilots of the RAF who played a vital role in supporting this operation, delivering more airstrikes than anyone else apart from the United States. The House can take pride in what they have done.
On illegal wildlife trade, we can be pleased with the agreement that the Prime Minister helped to secure at the G20 summit in Hamburg. It is about cracking down not only on the trade in charismatic megafauna, but on those who engage in gunrunning, people trafficking and much other human misery, as well as illegal wildlife trafficking. We can be proud of what we are doing.

Boris Johnson: I can confirm that we are increasing our contribution to £26 million—another £13 million we are contributing to tackle illegal wildlife trade. I have myself seen what UK-financed projects are doing in Kenya to crack down on this vile trade.

Stuart McDonald: There is increasing evidence that the UK’s legal ivory market has been used as cover for illegal trade. What discussions will the Foreign Secretary have with colleagues about an all-out ban on the ivory trade, as has previously been committed to?

Boris Johnson: As I have said before, the striking thing about this debate is how much unanimity there really is between the two sides of the Chamber on these fundamental questions, and I have been very struck that the leader of the Labour party seems to be very much on all fours with the objectives of the Brexit—[Interruption.] He very much agrees with the position we are taking, and I hope to see him in the Lobbies with us.

Rory Stewart: My hon. Friend has huge expertise as a former Africa Minister. The decision on whether or not I, as the Minister, visit Zimbabwe depends a great deal on the genuine commitment to reform of the Zimbabwean Government, and I will be guided by the ambassador in the country as to when such a visit would be necessary and possible.

Catherine West: What practical steps have been taken to deal with famine on the border between Venezuela and Colombia by the British Government?

Tommy Sheppard: What steps he is taking to encourage the Israeli authorities to stop the building of illegal settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Boris Johnson: As I have told the House before, we have repeatedly made our views clear to the US Administration. We have expressed our dismay that they have withdrawn, but on the other hand all Members, on both sides of the House, should in all fairness acknowledge that the United States has made and continues to make, even under this Administration, substantial progress in reducing greenhouse gasses. This country has reduced CO2 emissions by 42% since 1990, despite a 67% increase in GDP; the United States has achieved comparable progress, and we intend to encourage it on that path.

Alistair Burt: Yesterday’s court judgment was unequivocal in stating that the United Kingdom had fully fulfilled its obligations on controlling the arms trade. The work being done with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on its response to international humanitarian law was fundamental to that judgment. The situation in Yemen remains a humanitarian disaster. The United Kingdom is actively involved in seeking to do all it can. The cholera outbreak is currently claiming some 6,500 new cases every day. I am pleased that the Department for International Development is fully engaged and is trying to do all it can to mitigate these actions.

Rory Stewart: We should pay tribute to what the United States has done with its peacekeeping budget. It provides well over a quarter of the global peacekeeping budget: over $2 billion a year, which is not “odable”. We need to pay tribute to the US and to encourage it to continue to play a role, as it is a central part of peacekeeping worldwide. Its sticking to the congressional limit of 25% is vital for UN peacekeeping operations.

Rory Stewart: It is absolutely right, of course, that in the current global situation, UN peacekeeping operations are vital, but reforms can be introduced. The move in Cote d’Ivoire to close down the peacekeeping operation and the changes in Darfur are welcome. We can reduce peacekeeping costs, but it is vital that the United States and others continue to play a strong role. American financial support has been vital for the past 50 years, and we hope that it will continue to be over the next 50.

Bob Blackman: In Jammu Kashmir yesterday terrorists brutally murdered seven Hindu pilgrims, including five women, as they undertook amaranth yatra. What action has my right hon. Friend taken to condemn that terrorist outrage, and what support will he give to recovering and bringing to justice the terrorists who, we believe, emanate from Pakistan?

Chris Matheson: Another Foreign Office questions, and still my constituent Ray Tindall and the other men of the Chennai Six are incarcerated in India. Will the Secretary of State pick up the phone to his opposite number in India and do a deal to get the men deported so that Ray and I can have a pint in Chester before the summer is out?

Hugo Swire: While I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister raised the issue of the Chennai Six with Mr Modi at the G20, may I urge my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to focus his  efforts on the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and to seek an urgent meeting with her? Our boys have been languishing in jail there for almost four years—I visited them there myself—and it is time, frankly, that they were brought home.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: When the Prime Minister took office last year, she stood on the steps of Downing Street stating that she was on the side of working people. Despite that rhetoric, the Conservatives have been in government for seven years and in that time have done very little for working people. They have presided over a lost decade of productivity growth. They have implemented the pernicious Trade Union Act 2016, which is, frankly, an ideological attack on the trade union movement, curbing its ability to fight for and represent workers’ interests. They have inflicted hardship on public sector workers with a pay cap that was confirmed for yet another year by the Department for Education yesterday. They promised workers on boards, but rowed back scared when powerful interests said that they were not particularly keen on the idea. And they have introduced employment tribunal fees, which have made it much harder for workers to enforce their rights.
Today’s publication of the Taylor review was a real opportunity to overhaul the existing employment system in a way that would protect workers in a rapidly changing world of work. But, in the words of the general secretary of Unite, the biggest union in the UK:
“Instead of the serious programme the country urgently needs to ensure that once again work pays in this country…we got a depressing sense that insecurity is the inevitable new norm.”
Indeed, the Minister confirmed that she might not  even accept all the proposals in the Taylor report, in  any event.
Although the report is positive in sentiment in many areas, it misses many opportunities to clamp down on exploitation in the workplace. I do not have time to cover them all today, but I have specific concerns that the report may allow the Government to interpret references to the so-called dependent contractor in such a way as to allow them to row back on recent court victories for workers such as Uber drivers and those who work for Pimlico Plumbers.
Recent case law has suggested that a worker on a platform should be entitled to the minimum wage as long as the app is switched on and they are ready and willing to accept trips. However, the review suggests that the platform may insist on payment by piece rate, such that only an average driver, working averagely hard, will earn 1.2 times the minimum wage. That raises issues of enforcement and regulation—what constitutes a reasonable piece rate across platforms?—and it is something of a retreat from the common law position. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will not undermine workers’ rights on the minimum wage in that way? Founder of Pimlico Plumbers and Conservative donor Charlie Mullins said this morning that the report holds Pimlico Plumbers up as an example of
“best practice in the gig economy.”
This is a company that our judicial system has found to be an example of worst practice.
The report does very little to strengthen the enforcement of workers’ existing rights. Although Taylor agrees with Labour’s position on shifting the burden of proof to employers in determining self-employed status, the report does little else in that area, and it needs much more work. There is, for example, no movement at all on employment tribunal fees, which are a barrier to justice for many workers.
If the Prime Minister wanted ideas on strengthening workers’ rights, she could just have come to us. Just four of our manifesto commitments would go a long way to ending the scourge of exploitation in the gig economy: giving all workers equal rights from day one; strengthening the enforcement of those rights by beefing up and better resourcing Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, rather than imposing pernicious cuts, and by allowing trade unions access to every workplace; abolishing employment tribunal fees; and fining employers who breach labour market rights and regulations.
In the spirit of the so-called collaboration that the Prime Minister is so desperately seeking, will the Minister commit today to implementing those four simple measures, as a start? If not, will she accept that the Conservative party is not, and never will be, on the side of working people?

Chris Stephens: I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my trade union activity over the 20 years before my election.
Today’s response to the Taylor review from the Government tells us everything we need to know about their frailty and approach to workers’ rights—a weak set of proposals that probably will not be implemented and a set of talking points that leaves the balance of power with employers and big business. It was interesting that neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister mentioned or commended the role of the trade unions in securing fair rights at work. Does the Minister agree that a “right to request” is different to a fundamental right enshrined in law? If a request is refused, what enforcement action will the Government take to force employers to do better?
Does the Minister accept that the report makes no distinction between a flexible workforce and the exploitation of that workforce? Does she also agree that while the Taylor report tries to propose new rights, some of those rights have been secured by trade unions taking employers to court, as the shadow Minister suggested? Can the  Minister tell us what action the Government will take to enforce minimum wage payments when 200,000 workers in the UK are not paid the minimum wage? Will the Government advertise rights at work services, such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and does the Minister agree that it is time for a fair rights at work Act to guarantee fundamental rights at work?

Maria Miller: I welcome Matthew Taylor’s report today and commend the Minister on her statement, especially on tackling maternity and pregnancy discrimination, which the report says has doubled in the last decade and needs more action. Will the Minister outline what provisions in the report address the issues raised by the Women and Equalities Committee about workers’ lack of rights to access antenatal care during the working day, which the Minister—in her response to the Committee’s report—indicated would be addressed through the Taylor report?

Margot James: I commend my right hon. Friend on the work that the Committee, which she chaired, has done to tackle the issue of outrageous discrimination against pregnant women. It has no place in the modern workplace. There are provisions in the Taylor report, but work is ongoing across Government to improve the opportunities for pregnant women in the workplace to ensure that we make history of such discrimination.

Margot James: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and commend her on her role in the coalition Government. I am glad that she acknowledges that the Government have moved forward in their appreciation of the difficulties faced by certain workers in the areas on which Matthew Taylor has focused. I can give her every assurance that we will indeed consult widely not only with industry, trade unions and members of the public, but across the House.

Meg Hillier: It is not just my constituents who are part of the gig economy who do not have security. Many of my constituents have jobs in which they work 15 hours a week. They are pleased and proud to be working, but when they want full-time employment, they instead see more people in the same organisations being given part-time hours. When will the Government get to grips with that element of the economy, and ensure that all those workers have a fair deal and the chance to work the full-time hours that they want so much?

Ruth George: I welcome the Minister’s commitment to the Government’s upholding of workers’ rights, but I wonder whether, as part of the Government’s response to the report, she will consider enabling workers to uphold their own rights. Will she look again at the fees for employment tribunals, which have led to a 70% reduction in cases brought by single claimants, such as those working in the gig economy, against their employers?

Margot James: The hon. Lady makes an important point, but it is really a matter for the Ministry of Justice. Matthew Taylor has not actually recommended that we get rid of fees for employment tribunals, and I think we should recognise the positive aspect: the upsurge in the number of employment disputes that have been settled through mediation. However, I will continue to look at the issue that the hon. Lady has raised.

Kelvin Hopkins: Vital protection for all workers is provided by trade union membership and also by trade union recognition. Since my time at the TUC more than 40 years ago, trade union membership in Britain has halved, while workers’ and trade union rights have been undermined by Tory legislation. When will the Government reverse that legislation?

Anna Soubry: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would it be in order for a Minister to attend the House and make a statement on why there is no one authority with responsibility for the safety of rivers and canals? Last night, my 12-year-old constituent, Owen Jenkins, drowned at Beeston weir. It appears that he went into the River Trent to assist another youngster who had got into difficulty in the water. This seems to have been an act of great courage by a remarkable young man, and I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our heartfelt condolences to his family, his friends and all the other pupils at Chilwell School. Summer is here and the schools are now breaking up for the holidays. Our rivers, canals, quarries, ponds and lakes are potentially dangerous places, especially for children and youngsters, yet there is no one authority that has responsibility for safety in those areas. I think that a Minister should come along to the House and explain how we can ensure that all those places are safe for all of us, and especially for young people.

Diana R. Johnson: I beg to move,
That this House has considered the need for an independent public inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal.
May I first thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this emergency debate? This is the first such debate on the contaminated blood scandal, and it arises, as you know, after further evidence of criminal actions was produced by the right hon. Andy Burnham and after a joint letter calling for a Hillsborough-style inquiry from all six non-Government Westminster party leaders. After the announcement this lunchtime from Downing Street of a full inquiry into the scandal, emergency debates may become an even more popular route to get the Government to listen and act.
In light of the announcement, I want to acknowledge all the people who have been involved in getting us to this point. I will start by thanking my constituent Glenn Wilkinson for his persistence and dogged determination when he came to see me in 2010 to tell me his story. I have kept him at the centre of whatever I have attempted to do on this issue. I also thank the many individuals and campaign groups who have fought for years to get to this point: the Manor House group, the Contaminated Blood Campaign, and Tainted Blood. I thank the Haemophilia Society, in particular Liz Carroll, its chief executive, and Jefferson Courtney, the policy and public affairs manager. Over 2,400 individuals have tragically lost their lives. They are not here to see this announcement, but their voices live on through their family members, who have never given up fighting for them. The campaign, which has run for many years, has at times had the great benefit of brilliant investigative journalists, including Caroline Wheeler of The Sunday Times, who was formerly a correspondent on the Hull Daily Mail, and the many researchers and journalists who worked on the BBC “Panorama” documentary on the disaster from just a few months ago. I know that the Daily Mail is not  a favourite of yours, Mr Speaker, but it also ran a good story on its front page last week.
I thank the 111 parliamentarians who are members of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, particularly my co-chair the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), the previous chair Jason McCartney, who is no longer a Member, Margaret Ritchie and Mark Durkan, who are also no longer Members but were vocal in the campaign, and of course the right hon. Andy Burnham, who set out clearly in his valedictory speech why this was unfinished business and why we needed a public inquiry. Finally, I thank the late right hon. Paul Goggins, who was a huge inspiration in this cause.

Stephen Doughty: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been dogged in her determination and in not giving up. My constituent David Thomas came to see me in similar circumstances, as many constituents have done with Members on both sides of the House, but if he had not done so, I would not even have been aware of the scandal, let alone of the need to deal with it so fully. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the national and regional groups, such as Haemophilia Wales, who have done so much to stand up for those affected in particular locations? Their work has highlighted that this was a legacy issue from the UK Department of Health and that complications relating to the devolved status of health services across the UK need to be addressed in the inquiry.

Norman Lamb: I add my congratulations to the hon. Lady on her brilliant leadership on this issue. While the announcement is incredibly welcome news, does she agree that there is an urgency here, because the people who continue to suffer need help now? There is a danger that the process could go on for years and leave them still waiting for support.

Anne Main: My constituent, who does not wish to be named, wants us to include the remit of the Skipton Fund in this review. She, and many others, feel that the remit was wrongly drawn up, and that she and others have been denied the justice they should have had.

Chris Ruane: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her work on this issue. I welcome the fact that there will be a public inquiry, eventually and at last. Does she agree that that public inquiry should address the issues of why the UK was the last country in the western world to introduce a test for hepatitis C, why vital documents were destroyed by the Department of Health and why the UK took 13 years to be self-sufficient in blood products, when it took Ireland only five years?

Diana R. Johnson: That goes to the heart of it. There has never been any finding of liability, which has resulted in very low payments being made on a support basis, rather than on a compensatory basis.
I strongly believe, and I think the majority of the APPG believe, that a Hillsborough-style inquiry is the best way forward in this case, putting those affected at the heart of whatever is created and set up. They should be given the opportunity to have an input into the terms of reference. They should be able to look at people being considered as the chairperson or panel members of the inquiry, which has to have the support and confidence of all those affected. That is why the Hillsborough inquiry seemed to work effectively. In the case of Hillsborough, this was known as “Families First”, and I hope that approach might be able to continue in this inquiry as it is set up. All those affected need to be treated with the utmost respect and reverence, and to be fully consulted; any information that becomes available should first go to them.
In the remaining few minutes, I wish to talk about the four questions that I think the inquiry needs to look at. Andy Burnham set out in his speech why an inquiry was necessary, and of course he was one of two former Health Secretaries, the other being Lord Owen, who had raised serious concerns about the scandal. We know that the “Panorama” programme and the Daily Mail article followed. Given what Andy Burnham said and all the developments in the past few months, serious questions still need to be addressed by a public inquiry. First, why did the Government not act sooner to protect blood supplies once the risks became known? And why were we so reliant on American commercial products for haemophilia patients?
Because the UK was not self-sufficient in blood supplies, profit-making American companies played a considerable role in supplying factor concentrates to haemophilia patients. That blood was sourced from much riskier patients, including prison inmates, who were much more likely to have infections and had a financial incentive to be less than honest about their risks of infection. The dangers of American products were discussed in public not from the 1990s, nor the 1980s, but from 1970. As the Daily Mail reported last week, files now suggest that at least as early as 1980, officials had even put an estimate on the number of haemophilia patients being infected from these products with what we now know to be hepatitis C. They put the figure at 50 a year, yet it was not until 1986 that they took any action to address that.
If the whole of the UK had been self-sufficient in blood supplies, fewer haemophilia patients would have been infected. We know that, because Scotland had higher levels of self-sufficiency than England. As the BBC “Panorama” programme outlined, that meant that haemophiliacs in England were twice as likely to be infected with HIV as those in Scotland. Even in the mid-1980s, when the dangers of hepatitis C and HIV became known, it appears we could have acted sooner to remove risky blood products. And when the United States started screening its commercial products from March 1983, we carried on using non-screened American supplies that we had purchased before then; how can that possibly be justified?
My second question for the inquiry is: why were patients kept in the dark and not told of the risks once they became known? There are many aspects to this controversy that I know other hon. Members may wish to touch on, but I want to draw the House’s attention to  developments in 1983, in the midst of the AIDS epidemic, when there was still uncertainty over whether AIDS was a bloodborne disease.
In November 1983, the then Health Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), told Parliament that there was
“no conclusive evidence that…AIDS is transmitted by blood products.”—[Official Report, 14 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 327-8W.]
Yet earlier that same year his Department was preparing internal documents that said the opposite: in August 1983, that same Department was telling practising homosexuals and drug users not to give blood because of the risk of transmitting AIDS; in the summer of 1983, the Department was preparing a blood donor leaflet that said AIDS was “almost certainly” transmitted by blood and blood products; in July 1983, the UK Haemophilia Centre Doctors’ Organisation said that young children with haemophilia should receive a less risky form of blood product due to the dangers of AIDS; and between March and May 1983, the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service prepared a leaflet for blood donors, which included “haemophiliacs” and “recipients of blood transfusion” on a list of people who could get AIDS, and asked those same individuals not to give blood. Of course, the Scottish Penrose inquiry itself acknowledged that in adopting its position in November 1983, the then Government relied on
“a highly nuanced use of language.”
My third question is: why were some people tested for viruses without their knowledge and only told of the results many years later? There are many such cases of this happening, but I will make reference to just one: Jonathan Evans first tested positive for HIV in 1984 yet was not told of this until seven months later, in mid-1985. That posed a huge health risk to his wider family, and the history of this scandal is full of cases of spouses infecting each other. Tragically, the virus took his life. His son, Jason, was just four years old when his father died. He is still campaigning for justice for his father, and he has been instrumental in generating recent news coverage in the Daily Mail article and elsewhere.
Fourthly, there are allegations of a criminal cover-up, on an industrial scale, from the highest ranks of government downwards. At every stage of this scandal, there are concerns that officials knew more than they were letting on. Almost everyone affected by the scandal has encountered issues with lost medical records. Others have recovered their files, only to find that any mention of the connection with contaminated blood has been removed. Some individuals today are unable to access financial support via the Skipton Fund because of what has happened to their medical records. These cases of lost records also extend to the highest level of government. During the Archer inquiry, Lord Owen requested his departmental papers from the time when he was a Health Minister in the 1970s. He was told they had been destroyed
“under the 10-year rule”,
even though there is no evidence of the existence of such a rule.
Finally, when people were forced to sign waivers in 1991, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, they were asked to commit to bringing no further hepatitis C litigation as well as HIV litigation. These individuals did not yet know they had hepatitis C, as the disease has  a long incubation period. It seems that the inescapable conclusion is that departmental officials knew more than they were willing to disclose.
In conclusion, earlier this week the Prime Minister expressed her intention to work more with other party leaders to act in the best interests of this country. She has shown a laudable commitment to that with respect to other public disasters, including the child abuse inquiry and the Hillsborough disaster. Alongside the many thousands of people who have campaigned for justice for so long, I want to personally thank her for showing that same commitment with respect to the contaminated blood tragedy.
There are still questions to be answered on the detail of an inquiry. In welcoming this announcement, we must also be mindful of those who will never see its results: the more than 2,400 people who have tragically lost their lives. Many never even knew of the true scale of the scandal that was impacting on them. Those infected, and their families, will be waiting anxiously to know that the Prime Minister’s announcement will truly give them the justice they have so long been denied. But today, the Prime Minister has earned a place in history as someone who has listened to an issue that her predecessors had ignored, and put party politics aside in the name of giving people the answers that are their basic right. For that, she has my gratitude.

John Bercow: Order. Just before I call the first speaker from the Back Bench, I should say that at this stage I have not imposed any formal time limit, but a substantial number of people wish to contribute. Therefore, I know that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) will exercise a magnificent self-denying ordinance in the length of his oration.

Nadhim Zahawi: I am very grateful to you, Mr Speaker. May I join colleagues in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Kingston upon  Hull North (Diana Johnson) and the work she has done in leading the all-party group, as well to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who has been a joint chairman of that group?
I have been working with the victims in my constituency since 2011—for the past six years—and I consider myself a new boy when it comes to this particular tragedy and scandal. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) has spent many hours working tirelessly on behalf of those of his constituents who are victims. I pay tribute to him; I know he wanted to take part in the debate but could not because of Government business.
I thank the Prime Minister for listening to the victims of this extraordinary tragedy and to colleagues in the House, and announcing the inquiry. I acknowledge the Minister’s saying to colleagues that the Government are in listening mode on the inquiry’s terms of reference and that they will put the victims at its heart. That is what the victims would expect, and they will be grateful for it.
Many victims—this is certainly true of my constituent, Clare Walton—initially did not want an inquiry; they wanted a settlement instead. I pay tribute to Andy Burnham for his work on this issue, as well as to the journalists the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North cited. The new evidence that was uncovered led Clare Walton to change her view, and she is now very much supportive of and looking forward to engaging with the inquiry.
It is important that the inquiry looks into the subsequent treatment of victims and holds the relevant bodies to account. On Clare Walton’s behalf, I have been attempting to communicate with the Macfarlane Trust, which was one of the five charities set up to help the victims. I say “help,” but I have to tell the Minister that in my experience the Macfarlane Trust has done anything but help my constituent. It has behaved in an utterly despicable way. It refuses to meet my constituent or me—I have requested meetings for the past six years, but they always come back with a reason why they cannot meet.
The trustees of the Macfarlane Trust have bullied my constituent and “fed her with scraps”—those are her words—while at the same time having a charge over her property for all this time and making a profit on it. The trust refuses to discuss the future of the charge on her property. The scheme administrator will soon be changed to the NHS business advisory service, so she wants to know what will happen when that change takes place. I hope the Government will take some of these issues away and respond more fully at the appropriate time. The Macfarlane Trust says that it cannot give any more information until it has clarity from the Department of Health about transitional arrangements; Clare really wants that clarity. I hope the Minister will intimate, as his predecessor did, that the Macfarlane Trust is not much longer for this world. I have struggled even to speak to the trust on the phone.
Another of my constituents, Adrian Melson, is particularly concerned about the discretionary payments on which many victims rely. I hope that as the Minister begins to look at the evidence before him he will look closely at making sure that, if discretionary payments have become something much more permanent, they are recognised as such and not treated as discretionary. Under the previous Prime Minister, whom I commend  for coming out and wanting to resolve this issue, we promised our constituents that no victim would suffer financially under any compensation structure we put in place.
I shall take Mr Speaker’s eloquent words on board and end there, other than to say that this is not a party political issue: successive Governments have failed the victims. I hope we can now come together and have this inquiry, but we must make sure that there is a clear timeline and a deadline.

Sharon Hodgson: Thank you for your guidance, Mr Speaker.
First and foremost, thanks must go to my outstanding hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who has so valiantly campaigned on this issue for numerous years now. Without her and the dedicated resolve of her and all those she cited who have been involved in this campaign, we would not be where we are today. Thanks must also go to the former Member for Leigh, Andy Burnham, for the debate he  led at the end of the previous Parliament, for which I had the honour of being present. He helped to add expediency to this issue with his commitment to go to the police with the evidence he has if the Government failed to come forward with an inquiry to seek justice for those who have been neglected
For too long, the contaminated blood community have been simply failed by their Government and ignored by those who have let the demands of those affected fall on deaf ears, leaving the community without justice. It is very welcome—as we have heard in the news in the past hour and a half or so—that an inquiry may finally be happening, and I look forward to hearing further details from the Minister when he responds. I am grateful that he and you, Mr Speaker, have allowed me to speak first so that he can answer the questions I pose. This is a rather unusual format, and I had no prior knowledge that it was going to be changed. I hope that other Members who speak and pose questions will get a response from the Minister; I do not know whether he will get two bites at the cherry or will have to intervene to answer other Members’ questions.
This emergency debate is timely and allows the House to have its voice heard fully, which is right after the decades of neglect the contaminated blood community has faced. At any point prior to 12.30 pm, when the announcement was made in the news, the Minister could have come forward and made a statement. That would have saved my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North from having to apply for an emergency debate yesterday. It feels like the order of things has been a little forced, and it is sad that it has had to be forced in this way. But we are where we are.
Labour Members are resolutely in favour of a Hillsborough-style public inquiry, as we made clear in our manifesto a couple of months ago—my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and I pushed for that to be included. The Labour party believes that that style of inquiry would get to the heart of the problems that unfolded in the 1980s and hold to account those who were to blame for this scandal, before it is too late. It is not just our party, but all the parties—especially those on the Opposition Benches—that have made a commitment to stand up for those people seeking justice. That was so clearly documented in the joint letter, which was published on Sunday, from the leaders of every single opposition party here in this House, including, I am pleased to say, of the Democratic Unionist party.
Last November, in a debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North, we discussed a whole host of issues that this community faces, including how people could be compensated for the terrible events that have occurred. Today, we are here to debate the fight for justice, which should have happened a lot sooner.
In my contribution, I want to impress on the Minister two key points: first, that the previous two inquiries have, categorically, not been sufficient in seeking justice, which is why a Hillsborough-style inquiry must be actioned; and secondly, that the evidence presented so far is clear that if we are to have truth and reconciliation after the murky covering up of this scandal, then the strongest of daylight must be shone on every aspect, leaving no stone unturned.
The two previous inquiries—the Archer inquiry in 2009 and the Penrose inquiry in Scotland in 2015—did not go far enough in the eyes of the affected community in getting the truth and justice that they deserve. The Archer inquiry, which was not Government-backed, failed because there were no Department of Health witnesses giving evidence to the convened panel. The Penrose inquiry also did not go far enough in seeking the truth, as it was unable to compel witnesses from outside Scotland when, at the time of the scandal, most, if not all, of the decisions were made in Whitehall. That failure to compel witnesses to attend from outside Scotland meant that the inquiry failed to provide the justice and answers that people from right across the UK deserved.
There are many allegations around this scandal, ranging from Department of Health officials destroying evidence as part of the cover-up, to victims’ medical details being tampered with to hide the cause of their infections.

Ian Austin: Two of my constituents have two particular matters that they want the inquiry to consider: first, one said that he was infected with hepatitis C and exposed to the HIV virus, but was not informed of that by the NHS until years afterwards and he wants to be assured that the inquiry will reveal why the truth was hidden; the second wants to know about this issue of doctors and scientists being paid by the drug companies and about the precise nature of those deals. He thinks that those deals have to be really properly and rigorously exposed by this inquiry, so that we can get to the bottom of whatever vested interests existed during this scandal.

Sharon Hodgson: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The evidence on those things has been well documented, especially by the former Member for Leigh and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North. Those who have lived with these conditions; who are brave enough to come forward; and who are at the sharp end of this heinous negligence and the recent uncovering reported in the Daily Mail last week have proved just how important it is that a Hillsborough-style inquiry is set up.

Catherine West: Does my hon. Friend agree that the report, “Self Sufficiency in Blood Products in England and Wales” is unauthorised, and could possibly be perpetuating inaccuracies and outright lies, as my constituent says in a letter to me?

Sharon Hodgson: All of this evidence will have to be examined. In recent days, constituents affected by this scandal have been in contact with my office with intricate details that must be addressed. It is important that those questions, no matter how small they may be, are answered, as they reflect the issues that have inextricably affected that person’s whole life. It is most important that those issues are addressed, so that those who have lived with the ramifications of this serious negligence can finally have the justice that they deserve.
Getting to the bottom of the allegations and the evidence and having a full and frank inquiry that brings justice for the many people affected are the reasons why we must have this inquiry. As the joint letter by the  Opposition leaders said, if a panel were to be convened, it must disclose any and all documents related to the scandal, which involves the victims at every stage; and it must compel all parties involved to participate in the disclosure process and not to hinder justice any further. It must also investigate the events leading up to an individual’s infection and the aftermath, including allegations of medical details being tampered with, whether people were unknowingly tested for viruses without their knowledge and whether enough was done to identify those at risk of infection. As part of this inquiry, there must also be an investigation into the role of profit-making American firms, which supplied the blood factor concentrates to people with haemophilia.
Although none of this will bring back loved ones and those who have died as a consequence of this scandal, or change the life circumstances of those who are alive today living with these conditions inflicted on them, there is still something that we can do, which is to hold an inquiry. It is the very least that we can do. The thousands of people affected by this scandal must be supported and we must stand beside them in seeking justice, as that is our duty as elected representatives of the public.
I want to conclude with this final remark: none of us here has a magic wand—I know that our constituents think that we do—and we cannot turn back time and stop this scandal from happening. Sadly, that power does not exist, but the power that does exist, at the behest of the Minister before us today, is that of facilitating the justice for those who live with the aftermath of this scandal. Here, today, we can send a message—a loud and strong message to those who campaign on this issue day in, day out—that Parliament has listened and is on their side. We in this House have heard them; we in this House are there with them; and we in this House will do all that we can for them in their quest for justice. We cannot let them down. We can help facilitate the truth once and for all. Parliament is listening to the individuals who have spent decades fighting against the system to get the truth that they seek, and the Government must listen to Parliament. Parliament is saying: fix this, provide those thousands of people who never asked for this to happen to them with the justice that they so rightly deserve. We cannot fail them any longer.

David Davies: Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether the terms of the inquiry will allow for recommendations to be made about the correct levels of compensation for those who have been affected?

Sylvia Hermon: First, I apologise to the House, the Minister and to you, Mr Speaker, for not being present at the beginning of this very, very important debate. The Minister said that he is going to consult on the inquiry, which will be UK-wide. He will know that we do not have an Assembly, and there is no corresponding Health Minister in Northern Ireland, which is absolutely disgraceful. There is no prospect of our having such a Minister before autumn, so with whom will the Minister liaise in Northern Ireland in the Assembly’s absence?

Julian Lewis: My constituent, Lesley Hughes, was infected with hepatitis C in 1970, but this was discovered only about three years ago. Will any consideration be given to those long years of suffering when the compensation scheme is put into effect?

Philip Dunne: I think it would be appropriate to write to the inquiry, once that is established. I completely concur with an earlier point about ensuring that any evidence of medical records being tampered with should be made available to the inquiry.
I am afraid that I must bring my remarks to a conclusion. I thank those on both sides of the House who have worked tirelessly on the issue over the years. I add my voice to those of others who have already spoken to commend the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). She has spoken very powerfully in the House on this subject not only today, but on many occasions and for many years. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who co-chairs the all-party parliamentary group. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North did, I thank past and present members of that group, notably the former chair, Jason McCartney, late of this parish. Finally, I thank ministerial colleagues who have handled this delicate issue in previous Administrations, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who has worked so hard not just for his constituents, but for all those affected by the tragedy.

Philippa Whitford: As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) said, 2,400 people have died following the worst disaster in NHS history. That was due to a shortage of blood and clotting factors, which led to the NHS sourcing products from America. The problem is that the factor IX concentrates for men with haemophilia or women with Von Willebrand disease are made from thousands of samples. The moment when one or two people within that collection are affected is the start of having the virus, and that was why these patients were affected at a much higher rate than those who had a single blood transfusion. The problem is that the issue goes back decades and it has not been properly dealt with, as has been said already.
There have been multiple debates, statements and urgent questions on the issue during the two years in which I have been in the House—I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North for keeping at it with the all-party parliamentary group—but most of them have been about support. It was only last July that the Government finally came forward with a strengthened support package for these people. It is important to recognise that the payments are not compensation; they are ex gratia support payments, and they do not recognise the loss and suffering of the victims of contaminated blood. This only seemed to come about after the Scottish Government came up with a much more generous package in the form of a much larger lump sum, ongoing payments and, in particular, a 75% pension to the spouse and bereaved families. Such people still do not get sufficient support here in England, but it is not right that someone who has lost a partner to this scandal is not compensated.
We heard in March this year—a mere seven months after the announcement of a support package—that the Government were consulting on perhaps restricting who would qualify for the highest payments, and that the payments would not be index-linked. The youngest remaining victim is approximately 35. They have a whole lifetime to go through. That might be a shortened lifetime in comparison with ours, but we cannot suddenly leave people in poverty further down the line. These things need to be dealt with. I welcome the Minister’s commitment that the payments will be linked to the consumer prices index. We may need a debate on support, but that is not what this debate is about.

Philippa Whitford: The inquiry will have to look at all those things. Documents, patients’ records, things that were altered and hidden, and things that are hiding behind public interest barriers now all need to be opened up so that light can be shed on the matter, as was the case with Hillsborough.
Penrose was a Scotland-only inquiry. The Department of Health was invited to take part and turn it into a UK-wide inquiry, but it declined. One of the key weaknesses of the inquiry was that Penrose did not have the right to summon documents or people.
I remember when the scandal started to unfold in the ’80s. As a surgeon who was, of course, using blood on her patients, I remember how shocked I was at the mere thought that an action I might have taken could have harmed a patient I was looking after. In my elective surgery, I set about chasing every single blood cell to avoid spilling blood. I used electrocautery and all sorts of modern techniques. If I were to wheel out the staff from my theatre now, they would moan about how long I used to spend doing that. If a clinician is dealing with someone who has been hit by a bus, however, they have no choice.
I remember a critic of Penrose in 2015 saying that they were surprised that clinicians showed so much trust in the quality of blood, but a clinician who is using hundreds of drugs, implants, machines and blood products must be able to trust them. We have no mechanism personally to check them. That is the role of the Government and all their agencies. It is why we have licensing and inspections, and it is why action must be taken when there is a suspicion of harm. Failing to act, hiding and not dealing with the situation at the time all happened pre-devolution, and this inquiry must take account of that.
At a conference in Glasgow in 1980, clinicians were already raising concerns about changes in the liver function of patients who were receiving blood concentrate for haemophilia. A 1981 meeting of the UK’s Blood Transfusion Research Committee, which we have all read about recently, recognised that about 50 patients a year developed some form of liver damage. Yet the decision at that meeting appeared to be to let that continue and simply to study the situation, using those patients as a way of developing a test for what was known at the time as non-A, non-B hepatitis. It is important that we ensure that this inquiry looks at all this. The official from the Department of Health and  Social Security who was at that meeting would not attend Penrose. Such people need to be called by this inquiry.
Going forward, the inquiry must include the families and the victims so that we are sensitive to what they want to know. This is also about not just the Government but producers—and not just producers in America. We try to make ourselves feel better by blaming this on the States, where people bought blood, and where people with addictions, people living in poverty and prisoners were used. In the mid-70s, prisoners in this country were also used, and it is claimed that that was encouraged by the Home Office as part of prisoner rehabilitation. We need the documents on that; we need to understand if that decision was made. UK producers have often been found wanting in the quality of product they came up with, so we must not pat ourselves on the back and imagine that the UK product was somehow safe and that this was all due to the US. We need to follow this right down and get the answers.
These people have been failed so many times, over and over, and it is crucial that that does not happen again. We need to keep the Government on their toes. We need to have reports back from this inquiry as it is set up, so that we know what it is actually going to look into. If we fail to get answers this time, and particularly if we fail to deliver compensation for the lives lost, the suffering, the failure to get a mortgage or insurance, and the costs of care, we will have failed these people all over again.

John Bercow: Order. Can I just advise the House that with the exception of the maiden speaker whom I am about to call, colleagues should be thinking in terms of speeches of five minutes each, or at most six, if the Chair is to accommodate everybody? I am sure there are colleagues who would like to expatiate eloquently and at length, and on other occasions they might be free to do so, but that will have to wait, I say to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), for the long winter evenings that lie ahead. Before that, I hope that we can give a warm, enthusiastic and encouraging welcome to our maiden speaker, Annaliese Dodds.

Anneliese Dodds: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Speaker. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for securing this debate.
As the new MP for Oxford East, I must say that it is a shame to me that it was the Oxford haemophilia centre that produced blood products which resulted in many people contracting blood-borne diseases, and, further, that guidance from the centre in the early 1980s advocated  the use of humans to test infectivity. I will repeat that—the use of humans to test infectivity. However, I am very proud of the people from Oxford who have campaigned for so many years for justice, along with many others mentioned by my hon. Friends. Their fight, as we have heard, has been simply for truth and for accountability so that events like these can never happen again. As I start my maiden speech, I would like to dedicate my words to them and to all the other people in Oxford who fought for justice against all the odds—not least, also, the survivors of the Bullfinch sexual abuse scandal, whose bravery has been remarkable and an inspiration.
I am enormously grateful to the people of Oxford East for electing me as their representative. As such, I of course take over from Andrew Smith, who served us for three decades as our MP and who many people in all parts of this House knew very well. Like many people, Andrew came initially to Oxford unsure of whether it would become his home, but quickly recognised the potential of our great city, not least because as a student he met, very quickly, his wonderful wife Val, who was also known by many people in this House. Val was an incredibly powerful advocate for the community of Blackbird Leys, which she served as a county and city councillor for many years. Her wisdom and her kindness is still very sadly missed by many of us.
Andrew is undoubtedly best known in Oxford East as a diligent constituency MP who cares passionately about our city and all its people, including of course those living in his home community of Blackbird Leys. But Andrew also had a very distinguished career in Parliament, including serving in the Cabinet as Chief Secretary to the Treasury from 1999 to 2002, and then as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions from 2002 to 2004. Andrew’s work, with others, lifted more than a million pensioners and half a million children out of poverty, helped restore the national finances—a piece of history often ignored or, sadly, distorted in this House—and brought in some of the biggest increases in health and overseas aid spending our country has ever seen. Andrew also presided over groundbreaking disability rights legislation, set up the pension protection fund, and helped bring in the pension credit, among many, many more transformative initiatives.
Andrew is none the less an incredibly humble man. He always stressed how his achievements came about through working with others, either in this House or in Oxford. In fact, Andrew is so humble that when he was in the Cabinet running Britain’s welfare state, his own television was so dilapidated that it had to be whacked many times before it would actually work. He is very intelligent but also very straightforward, without any airs or graces, and is immensely respected for it. I am sure that Members in all parts of this House will wish him very well for a long and very happy retirement.
Oxford East could be imagined as a constituency filled only with gleaming spires, detectives driving Aston Martins, and mysterious university dons. But while Oxford East boasts two excellent universities and bustles with students during term time, Oxford also has an impressive industrial heritage, and enormous further industrial potential, with the right infrastructure investment and support. What was the Pressed Steel Company plant, now BMW Cowley, produces nearly a quarter of a million Mini cars every year. Its engineers, technicians  and apprentices are among the best in the world. Oxford as a city voted to remain in the EU, although some areas in the city had a majority to leave. Whether people voted to leave or to remain, no one voted to deny our city its potential. It is essential that European markets remain open to businesses like BMW Cowley, and that we retain Oxford’s many and various links with European and global science, as well as protecting the EU citizens who have made their home in our city.
In fact, Oxford is a city that has always looked outwards, as the first ever Oxfam shop on Broad Street reminds us. People with roots from all over the world call Oxford East their home. I am very proud that in my constituency we have five mosques, many different Christian churches, and substantial Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist and Jewish populations. But I feel that the potential of many people from all of our communities in Oxford East is currently being held back.
Yesterday I attended the funeral of Bill Buckingham, who had been a Labour councillor and campaigner in Oxford East for 70 years; he died at the age of 96. Bill was among many who came back after serving our country in the second world war, determined that Lloyd George’s promise after the first world war now had to be turned into a socially inclusive reality, with homes built for heroes as part of mixed communities to be proud of. As Bevan put it at the time, we needed high-quality housing where the doctor, the grocer, the butcher and the farm labourer could all be neighbours, without social distinction.
What of that ambitious vision survives now? House prices and rents in Oxford are the least affordable in Britain outside London. Renters of homes have fewer rights than if they were renting a sofa or a fridge. The rules for housing benefit have been changed so people whose families have lived in Oxford for generations are being forced out of their city for the crime of merely earning an average, not above-average, wage; and, to pay for the right to buy in housing association properties, up to a third of Oxford’s remaining council stock could vanish.
For me, people doing their best to bring up their children on low incomes in Oxford are today’s heroes and heroines. Often running between more than one job to make ends meet, I must say that it comes as a slap in the face to them when they hear politicians refusing to admit that there is such a thing as in-work poverty. I was disturbed to hear that repeatedly in this House last week. Britain, and especially Oxford, urgently needs more genuinely affordable homes, with affordability not covering homes worth £400,000, as is currently the case. Renters need stronger rights, and they need, above all, a system that recognises houses as homes—as places to live and not merely investment opportunities. We also, of course, need to unlock the potential of our communities and not allow them to be asset-stripped.
I live on the Rose Hill estate in Oxford with my family—I am very pleased that some of them are here today. It is a wonderful, friendly place, albeit one where almost half the children on the estate grow up in poverty. Bill Buckingham, along with many other local people, kept Rose Hill’s community centre going through thick and thin, even when it burned down, and now we have a new centre on my estate, but other community  facilities have been run down in recent years. I loved meeting other parents during baby sessions at the children’s centre when I had my first child four years ago. As you can see, he is quite grown-up now, albeit a little bit tired. But by the time my daughter arrived 18 months ago, there were no more baby sessions available. Instead, the children’s centre is only available for supervised contact sessions and for two—that is two—hours a week of supervised play. Community spaces such as children’s centres may not grab the headlines, but for many people they mean the difference between loneliness and friendship, between ill-health and wellbeing, and between division and neighbourliness.
Oxford East and its incredible people have so much potential, but too often, I feel, they are being held back. As their MP, I am ambitious for our city and its people, and I will devote the time they have given me in this place to ensure a better, brighter and fairer future for them, and for people like them, across this country.

Kevin Hollinrake: I, too, start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for her leadership and persistence on this issue, on which she and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) have done tireless work. I welcome the Minister’s statement that a public inquiry will happen on this most important of issues. The Prime Minister has clearly listened to views across the House on the matter.
At one of my first surgery appointments, Richard and his wife came to see me to tell me his story. Richard was a haemophiliac who was sent to a school for the physically disabled in Hampshire when he was 11. For six years, he was given hundreds of thousands of units of factor VIII. Prior to that he had been given cryoprecipitate, which was perfectly workable in moderating his condition. The factor VIII prophylactic treatment was meant to prevent the dangers caused by haemophilia. It changed Richard’s life. Sadly, 64 of the 75 people from Richard’s school are no longer with us. Many of those young people died in their early teens.
This case is a double tragedy. Richard and his wife told me the very good news that, in later life, they decided to have children, but due to the risk of his hepatitis affecting the unborn baby, they had to have a termination, so they are childless as well as having been affected by terrible diseases throughout their lives.
I neglected to congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford East (Annaliese Dodds) on her very fine maiden speech. She certainly made a far better job of it than I did of mine when I stood here two years ago. Her tremendous words were highly relevant to the topic under discussion. I am sure she will make many further fine contributions in the years ahead.

Kevin Hollinrake: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These terrible diseases have so many tragic implications. Through no fault of their own, people did not know that the treatments would have an adverse impact on their health.
Helen was infected in the 1980s, but it was only when she moved to my constituency in 2006 and registered with a new GP that she was diagnosed with hepatitis and its associated difficulties. She has had many consequent health problems, including four strokes, diabetes and rheumatoid osteoporosis. It has had a huge impact on her life. She calls her health a “ticking time bomb”. She had to relocate back from France after trying to set up a new life there with her husband and two children.
I have spoken to both of my constituents today. It is incredible how lightly they seem to carry their burdens. They have moved on from the principal issue, which was compensation, and what they want now is a public inquiry to get to the bottom of this. It is about getting answers. I am not saying that compensation is not important—it is hugely important, particularly for their spouses and children—but today they want answers.

Alison Thewliss: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for her sterling work, and to Andy Burnham and so many others who have pursued the issue relentlessly over the years. It is a testament to their commitment that they have kept going, even when all hope seemed to be lost.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Oxford East (Annaliese Dodds) for her excellent maiden speech. I am sure that we share a lot of common ground, and I hope we will work together over the coming months and years.
Before Parliament broke up back in April, Andy Burnham laid a challenge to all the parties to include in their manifestos a commitment to the victims of contaminated blood. I am very pleased and proud that my party saw fit to do so. Our manifesto stated:
“Victims of contaminated blood products deserve answers.”
In 2008, the SNP Scottish Government established the Penrose public inquiry, which reported in 2015. In government we have also worked with stakeholder groups to develop a substantially improved compensation scheme, which is now the best in the UK. SNP MPs will support a full public inquiry for the rest of the UK, and I am very proud to stand by those words today.
I am incredibly pleased and surprised to hear that the Government have changed their stance. When we last met in April it did not feel as though much more was going to happen, so the change in the Government’s attitude is very welcome. I do not want to appear churlish, but the changed numbers in this Parliament mean that some things that seemed impossible before are now open for debate. I am very glad about that.
There has been recognition of the limitations of Penrose and what the Scottish Government could do. We could not compel witnesses to attend and we had a limited remit to consider negligence, so it is good that we now have this opportunity to relook at all the issues. I am also glad to hear the Government commit to working with the devolved Administrations, because we have the experience of an inquiry, limited though it was. I hope to hear more about the ways in which the Scottish Government and victims in Scotland will be brought in as part of the process.
In the April 2016 debate, I mentioned my constituent Maria. I have not been able to reach her to ask for her views, because this debate and the Government’s announcement came so very late in the day, but I want to put on the record again that Maria contracted hep C in 1981 from a blood transfusion following a miscarriage. She did not find out for many years. Even when she sought a diagnosis, it took two years to get it. She would want this House to know that, having lived with hep C for 36 years, she does not want charity. She does not want vouchers or handouts; she wants to be treated fairly and with dignity. That is the very least she deserves from this process.

Layla Moran: The Oxford Haemophilia Centre serves my constituents. I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for securing this debate. Does the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) agree that victims want not just transparency but justice, and that if we find evidence of a cover-up, the individuals involved should face the full force of the law?

Alison Thewliss: I absolutely agree. I am glad that the hon. Lady raised that point, which I was about to move on to. Without that justice, the victims will never feel as though they have been well served. They will feel as though they have lost out and there has been no justice.
The inquiry must look at the changing of medical records. Somebody must have issued a clear instruction to do so, because such cover-ups do not happen by themselves. We must find the lines of responsibility whereby people were told, “Delete those records, and don’t tell people about this. Test people, but do not let them know.” All those outstanding questions must be answered, and we must find out what was known, when and by whom. In the search for answers, we must recognise that some questions cannot be answered because the relevant information is held in the United States. Ministers must reach out and speak to their counterparts in other parts of the world to try to find answers. Ways must be found to co-operate with the American Government.
We need to be able to have confidence in our current processes. I understand that the US started screening blood donations in 1983, but we did not start doing so until 1991. Every time I donate blood, I am conscious that the integrity of the system is based on my honesty, at every stage. We must find better ways to ensure that our systems are as robust and secure as possible.
The Government have said that during the inquiry, they will reach out to those who receive funds through the current schemes. I hope that that will be done in co-operation with the devolved Administrations where they have responsibility. I encourage the Government to find as many ways as possible to contact people and let them know what is happening. In some cases, the individual concerned may have died and their family members may not be aware of what is going on. We must reach out as widely as possible through advertising, social media and all other means at our disposal to involve as many people as possible in the inquiry.
People must be supported to attend and give evidence to the inquiry. The experience may be very traumatic for some, and they may need counselling or financial support to enable them to attend and to ensure that the required documents reach the inquiry. The Haemophilia Society has said that we must treat such documents with the utmost care and protection. People are, quite rightly, sceptical about how their documents will be treated, and we must enable them to trust that if they submit evidence, it will be not be lost. That goes for Government evidence as well as for private evidence belonging to members of the public.
We have waited far too long for justice on this matter. I encourage the Government to maintain the sense of urgency during the inquiry, to make sure that it is not dragged out over many, many years without the victims receiving answers. The victims have waited far too long for justice, and they should not have to wait much longer.

Anna Soubry: It is a pleasure to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the first time that I have had the honour to be in the Chamber when you are sitting in your rightful place in the Chair.
My involvement in the contaminated blood scandal was as, I think, the second Minister for public health the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) had the occasion—I nearly said the great misfortune—to come to see. She brought to that meeting all the vim and vigour with which she has pursued this campaign over seven long years. It has taken seven years for justice to be brought about, and that is too long.
I think I am right in saying that when the hon. Lady came to see me, her biggest concern was the burning injustice involved. To me, something inherent in the matter just felt wrong. I could not put my finger on it, but I was convinced that something was not right. The attitude of some of the people I encountered strengthened that feeling. They wanted to sweep the matter under the carpet, so that they no longer had to deal with it, and move on to other ways of helping the unfortunate victims.
There are two elements to all this. The first great injustice is the terrible scandal itself, which happened decades ago and which Governments—of all three colours, including the coalition Government—failed to grasp as I and others in government wanted them to. The second great injustice concerns money. I pay full tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who absolutely got it, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton). After the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North asked her question of the Prime Minister last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford and I sat here together. I will not repeat everything that we said to each other, but it boiled down to, “For goodness’ sake”—or words to that effect—“let’s just get on and get this done properly.” We were talking not just about a public inquiry, but, most importantly, about the money. I also pay tribute to Jane Ellison, the previous Minister for public health, because I know that she got this as well.
To get a public inquiry, it was necessary to submit to the Government all the extra material that has been forthcoming in recent times, as further evidence of the need for such an inquiry. No matter how much Ministers and hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House care about something and see why it should be done, political will is required to make it happen. I pay handsome tribute to the Prime Minister for not messing about. I know that she will have been supported by wise words from the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), and from the Secretary of State, who made the case to her. She has grabbed the matter by the horns, done the right thing and given us a public inquiry.
I want to go further and talk about the second grave injustice. I was reminded of correspondence that I have had with constituents whose son is a haemophiliac. As if being the parents of a haemophiliac was not hard enough, he was diagnosed at the age of nine with AIDS and hep C. He has faced real challenges in his life, which has been blighted by plain prejudice—I have heard horrible stories about the bullying he encountered at school—because of the triple combination from which he suffers. Now he is married, he is the father of a child and he owns his own home. His parents, who have suffered not just injustice but the real difficulty of watching their son suffer, are such wonderful people.  They give you every faith in people’s goodness. They have no grievances against anybody, but they just want a proper financial package.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) talked about the fact that victims receive an ex gratia payment rather than compensation. I remember those schemes, and I was horrified to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) that they have not been sorted out. I beg the Government to scrap them, and, in blunt, simple terms, to give these people the money that they deserve and need: do not give them that money as ex gratia payments; do not make them scrabble around to find bits of paper that they have to take with them, cap in hand, to ask for money. As if they have not suffered enough, how demeaning is it for them to have to go and, as they see it, beg for bits of money?
I urge the Government to get a load of money—these things are possible; we know that it can be done—of the sum that is required. I know that it is not quite so simple, but the next thing to do is to look not at liability, but at quantum, as we lawyers call it. How much would each individual, or their widow or survivor, be entitled to if liability was not an issue? Then, I ask the Government to do the right thing. I do believe that they can find the money. I know that many in government, including the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, absolutely got this. For whatever reason, his term in office was not the right time to do something about the matter, but he understood the human side, as did many of us.
It is now time to sort out the second grave injustice—the money. Get the money together, put it in a pot, decide quantum and give these people everything that they deserve and need. Then, finally, the last grave injustice and national scandal will have been sorted out and solved. Of that, we will all be able to be proud.

Andrew Slaughter: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), I became engaged in this issue after 2010, when constituents contacted me, and one constituent in particular—a remarkable man called Andrew March, whom I shall say a little about in a moment.
I feel slightly ashamed that I did not fully understand the utter tragedy of contaminated blood, which has not been with us for seven years; it has been with us for more than 30 years. As a country, we need to own up to the fact that we do not do these things very well. The same is true of Hillsborough and, in many ways, of Grenfell. These are not matters that have happened and then been dealt with appropriately. They are things that we have failed to address over years, if not decades.
I would say one or two things on the remit and type of inquiry, because these are multiple failings. Yes, of course, there is the failing that led to the infections and the multiple infections in the first place, but, until recently, the Government would not even mention the word “negligence”. Now, I am pleased to say, due in large part to what Andy Burnham has done, we are talking about criminality, but it has taken a long time to get there. On how the victims have been treated by the establishment, again, one could make comparisons with what happened with Hillsborough over many years, such as the way that they have been ignored and badly  treated. In relation to recompense and financing, that includes the fact that the various trusts and schemes, as well as the quantum involved and the administration, have been appalling.
I have said to Minister after Minister over the past seven years that a bespoke solution is needed. We are talking about a finite and decreasing number of people, and we need a bespoke solution for each of those individuals and families, because everybody is in a different position according to their circumstances, health and personal needs.
I again pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North, and to many other Members—I am surprised that the all-party group does not have 650 members, rather than 111—but the real credit goes to the victims themselves, who had to fight and fight and fight to get very little.
I have felt frustration taking part in every debate on the subject over the past seven years and during the endless meetings with Ministers through the all-party group, so I am glad that the Minister has said that his mind is open on the type of inquiry. We need an inquiry with powers, such as an inquiry held under the Inquiries Act 2005 with powers to call witnesses and interrogate them under oath. We need the forensic skills that a judge would bring, but at the same time the inquiry needs to have credibility and trust. We do not want to start making the same mistakes that we made with the sex abuse inquiries and are beginning to make, I am afraid, in the Grenfell inquiry.
The other day, I was listening to Dr Richard Stone on the radio. He assisted the Macpherson inquiry and was trusted by the local community. We need here a combination of those forensic skills and people who know the issues and know the people involved, and are trusted by them. We have to have full access to documentation. We have to have proper rights of audience for the victims and their families. We have to have full representation. That means legal aid. I hope that in the same way that the Government are now discovering their neglect of social housing over many years has been a mistake, they will discover that the cuts in legal aid are also a mistake and are false economies.
I say that while paying tribute to what the Minister has said today, but remembering that in the previous debate, which Andy Burnham held in this House only some two months ago, we were told that a public inquiry was not appropriate. Let us consider just some of the issues that are being dealt with here: non-consensual testing; victims not being informed of the results of that testing; non-consensual research involving previously untested patients; people being informed, if they were informed, in hospital corridors or through the post; and minors being told without their parents being present. All this was happening in our country in the relatively recent past.
Then there is the cover up—the allegations in relation to documents being destroyed and people not being prepared even to answer questions. All that has to be addressed through this inquiry.
Given the time, may I end by talking about Andrew March, as a large part of my involvement in the investigation is down to him? With his consent, I shall discuss personal details, which, courageously, he wants in the public realm because he wants us to get to the bottom of this. In a letter to me earlier today, he wrote:
“I have been looking at my medical notes, and have discovered that essentially, I am one of the patients who was not informed by their hospital (in my case Coventry and Warwick Hospital) that I had non-A non-B hepatitis throughout the 80s, and similarly, I was not informed that I had Hepatitis C when the hospital tested me without myself or my parents knowing”—
he was a minor at the time—
“despite testing me years earlier, without myself or my parents knowing. I only found out ‘by accident’ in October 1992, when I transferred my care to the Royal Free in London”.
Andrew quotes from the letter from the consultant at the Royal Free, who said:
“On further discussion he did not seem to be aware that he was Hepatitis C antibody positive and we therefore spent some considerable time discussing our understanding of Hepatitis C infection and the implications of antibody positivity.”
Andrew says:
“I am a severe haemophiliac, and one of only 250 HIV positive haemophiliacs who remain alive today. Of those originally infected in the 1980s, more than three-quarters have died during the course of the past 3 decades. Many of them were my friends.
I was also infected with hepatitis B and C, and despite treatment, I continue to live with the adverse effects of cirrhosis of the liver…I am also one of the 3,872 haemophiliacs (and persons with bleeding disorders), who have been notified as being considered ‘At-Risk’ of vCJD (the human form of Mad Cow Disease).”
This avoidable tragedy has completely transformed Andrew’s life and put him at huge disadvantage. He has never received a proper explanation. He has never been properly recompensed. Despite that, he has devoted his life to ensuring justice for all the victims. We owe it to him and to all those other victims—many of them, unfortunately, already dead—to drill down forensically into this tragedy, and to do so reasonably speedily and in a way that leaves nothing unexposed. If we do not do that, a reducing number of people will get justice.

Rebecca Pow: I welcome you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as this is the first time I have spoken since you have been in the Chair.
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). The case he mentioned is almost unreal, and few of us could believe it to be true if we had not lived through this issue ourselves. I pay tribute to all the campaigners up and down the country who have worked so hard to get this issue on the agenda—in particular the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), but also many Members from across the House. This shows us pulling together and how Parliament should work. It has taken a long time, but we can make a difference. I hope this really will make a difference to those victims who have suffered, and that today’s announcement will change people’s lives once the public inquiry gets going. I would very much like to thank the Prime Minister and the Government for listening and for responding over this tragic affair.
When I became MP for Taunton Deane, one of the first people who came to see me, who does not want to be named, visited my surgery to tell me the desperate story of how his whole life had been blighted by being treated—inadvertently—with infected blood, as in so many other examples that we have heard today. I was quite naive. I had never engaged with anybody in that  situation before, and I was deeply shocked by his account of all that he had gone through for his whole life. Being given infected blood had plagued and blighted his life. He was ill, of course, but also his quality of life was affected. One of the effects that resonated most with me was that it affected his relationship with his son—he did not have the time to spend with him. We all take for granted that we can leave our children an inheritance, even if it is not very much—some money for a car or a share of a house. My constituent was distraught and felt he had not done justice to his son because his illness meant that he had a problem holding down jobs. Not only was he suffering from the blight of the illness, but he carried that guilt with him.
My constituent raised two practical concerns with me about the system. First, he felt that the level of financial support was not sufficient to enable him to feel secure and he was constantly struggling. Secondly, the scheme that administered his payment—the Macfarlane Trust, which other hon. Members have mentioned—did not work effectively and as a result did not adequately support those it was designed to help.
I have spoken on this issue several times in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall, as well as privately to the Department of Health. I was pleased to hear that the Government had listened to our voices and it is welcome that this autumn a new single scheme will be introduced, with additional funding of £125 million, to replace the complicated system of five different support schemes. The devil will be in the detail, but I know that the Government will take into consideration all the comments from the consultation. I hope that that will iron out some of the problems that so many people have struggled with and make life better for the victims.
I am also pleased with the moves that the Government have made on transparency—another issue that hon. Members have mentioned. I appreciate the serious concerns about how this has been handled in the past, but I know that Ministers are keen from now on to make all information readily available. That has been promised in the inquiry announced today.

Jessica Morden: I want to speak in this debate on behalf of my constituents, Lin Ashcroft and the Smith family, victims of the contaminated blood scandal.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Annaliese Dodds) on an excellent maiden speech. She rightly highlighted the importance of the campaign and her local campaigners, and we look forward to hearing many more speeches from her. I also add to the tributes to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). We are having this debate because of her, and she has worked tirelessly on the issue with other hon. Members. She has a parliamentary life well spent on the issue, let alone all the other matters that she has campaigned on. But she has done this for the victims, and, in welcoming the Government’s announcement of a public inquiry today, I agree with her that it is so important that the families are at the heart of it. The inquiry has been a very long time coming; we failed this community many, many times, and they need to be at the heart of it and have confidence in it.
It is absolutely shameful that 45 years have passed since the first people were infected with HIV and hepatitis from NHS-supplied contaminated blood and blood products, yet we have still not got to the truth for the members of the community who are affected. They have been let down so often, but they still come here relentlessly, all these years later, to see Ministers and lobby MPs to fight for justice. I pay tribute to them for their strength. I remember a family telling me, not so long ago, that in the end they had to stop going to the funerals of the friends whom they had made as part of this campaign, because it had become too heartbreaking: there were just too many funerals to go to. I think that is really sad.
As the former Member of Parliament for Leigh said in his last speech in this place, there is plenty of new evidence that backs up what campaigners have known and felt in their bones for many years: that the risks posed by contaminated blood were known by the authorities and pharmaceutical companies at the time but it was still used; that people were used for testing and as guinea pigs; and that efforts were made to suppress that truth. Let us remember that these were people who went to the NHS for treatment and were infected by blood provided by the NHS—provided by the state. They have had to fight for years for that to be acknowledged, and no fault has ever been admitted by either the Government or the pharmaceutical companies that supplied the contaminated blood products. It was said that that was because no one could have known about the problem at the time but, as a result of the work of campaigners, Members and the media, we now have that new evidence that risks were known. The inquiry must start now, so that we can get to the truth once and for all.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North, more than 2,400 people have died and the lives of thousands more have been wrecked. I want to talk about just one of those people, Colin Smith from Newport in my constituency. He was one of the youngest victims of the contaminated blood scandal, and what happened to him illustrates just why the inquiry cannot come quickly enough.
Colin went into hospital in 1983 when he was eight months old with a minor ear condition. As a haemophiliac he received factor VIII, which the family learnt, following a freedom of information request, had come from a batch from a prison in Arkansas. He spent his short life fighting illness. He died, aged seven, of AIDS and hepatitis C in 1990. The family did not know he had hepatitis C until three years after his death: it had been kept secret, as so much was kept hidden. I hope that that will be examined in the inquiry, because people like Haydn Lewis, who was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), had to battle and battle to obtain such information.
Colin died aged seven in his mum’s arms, weighing about the same as a baby. I have told his story before in the Chamber. It is a heartbreaking story, but telling such stories is an important reminder of why we are here today. It is also an important reason for having a public inquiry. We now know something that Colin’s family knew in their hearts, I think, for many years, but have since outlined on “Panorama” and in Private Eye. One of the recently unearthed letters written by Colin’s haemophilia specialist in 1983 recorded that, following his minor incident,
“without any evidence of intracranial bleeding the child was still given factor 8”.
The specialist added that
“all these materials carry the risk of hepatitis but this is something haemophiliacs have to accept”.
He said that he would keep Colin under
“close observation as months go by”.
Six years later, after Colin had died, the same specialist wrote to pharmaceutical companies saying that he could not supply any more “samples” because Colin was no longer at his facility. Colin’s family were not aware of that until much later. That and other evidence needs to be put before the public inquiry so that witnesses can be called under oath and all documents can be disclosed, because it indicates that the risks of using this blood—supplied by profit-making American companies—were known in 1980 or earlier, three years before it was given to Colin.
Colin’s tribute on the Tainted Blood website says:
“Thousands of people, like Colin… didn’t make it this far. He never had the chance to join the cubs, play football for his school, have a girlfriend, go travelling or get married…Instead, his short life was filled with hospitals, doctors and illness. He was just a little boy, but a very special one who we, at TB, always keep in mind as we campaign.”
He is in my mind every day, because when at home in my constituency I often drive past the Smith’s house, with my eight-year-old son sat in the car next to me, and I imagine how I would feel if this had happened to me. So I just say this to the Minister: would I have been happy if there was a public apology and would I have been happy with the limited financial support that people felt they had to beg for, or would I want to  finally get to the truth? Nothing can bring back Colin and others, but we can at least have a public inquiry that gets this right. We need to get it right this time, because Colin’s family and others have been through so much over the years that we cannot let them down again.

David Hanson: Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the first chance I have had to speak under your chairmanship, and I congratulate you. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Annaliese Dodds) on her maiden speech. She made a powerful intervention on behalf of her constituents, and I wish her well in her parliamentary career, which I hope will be at least as long as that of her predecessor, Andrew Smith, who  served in the House for more than 30 years. It is also appropriate for me to pay tribute, as have many hon. Members, to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on behalf of all the Members who have supported her in the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, which has more than 111 members from both sides of the House. The group has looked at the real effects and causes of this scandal, as well as examining the recompense and support given to the people who have suffered as a result of it, and I should like to comment on those issues today.
There are two clear issues that we need to address. The first covers the history of these events, what caused them, what could have been done to prevent them and who is liable and responsible. The second covers the question of what the state does for those who have no blame in this matter, and what type of support is given to those who are now facing the challenges resulting from the scandal. I do not expect the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), to be able to answer all these questions today. It is clear that the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and other hon. Members, and the letter from the six party leaders, have focused the Government’s mind on how to respond. I accept and understand that, but it is none the less important to put some challenges to the Minister about the form of the inquiry. The Welsh Government in Cardiff publicly called for an inquiry in January, and I know that they will be interested to know that they have the support of the House here today for that response.
I raise these issues because, like all hon. Members who have spoken today, I have constituents for whom the impact of the contaminated blood scandal has run through their lives over the past 30 years. They wish to remain anonymous, and that is quite right, but I have met them and I have seen the impact that it has had on their lives. This involves not only the trauma of the people who were infected and have since died in large numbers but the fact that people cannot get insurance and often cannot maintain stable employment. They have the problem of not knowing whether they are going to live or for how long, and not knowing what will happen to their relatives when they die. I have constituents with young children who might have to face the consequences of their early death at any time.

David Hanson: I am grateful for that intervention, because that reassures me and my constituents about the process. I will simply say that the key thing for the future is confidence, transparency and ensuring that people feel like they can have their say properly and effectively. The inquiry should also have some timescale, so that people know how much of their lives it will take up. If the Minister can do those things and perhaps inform the House about the inquiry’s budget, staffing and the other things that we would expect in any inquiry, that will help to reassure people that the Government are not just responding to events and pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North, but are keen on getting a positive outcome for the innocent victims of what is a national scandal. I hope that the Minister will keep the House and, in particular, those who have been infected informed, because at the end of the day this is about their lives and their futures. The uncertainties that they have faced demand the compassionate and considered support that I am sure the Minister will give them.

Rosie Winterton: Order. I do not want to impose a formal time limit, but I would ask Members to try to keep to four minutes. That way I will not have to impose a formal time limit.

Victoria Atkins: I welcome you to your place, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I join other Members in paying tribute to all those affected by this terrible tragedy, to the families of those affected and to hon. Friends and hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and my hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi). I also pay tribute to the new hon. Member for Oxford East (Annaliese Dodds) on delivering her maiden speech in this important debate.
I speak today to give a voice to my constituent, who understandably wishes to remain anonymous. He was born with haemophilia and has had to endure that terrible chronic condition, the treatment for which has poisoned him—he has been infected with both HIV and hepatitis C. Those infusions have condemned him to a life of pain, of serious medication, which has its own side-effects, of major surgery and of worry. “Worry” seems an inadequate word to describe the constant weight that must be on his mind, and on the minds of those who love him, each and every day of his life.
This tragedy has affected every single day and every single aspect of his life, from his marriage to his ability to work and his family. He told me recently that he and his wife have told their grown-up child of his condition and his infections because, as he told me, “when is the right time to tell your child that you have HIV and hepatitis C?” So my constituent welcomes today’s announcement. He asks for a Hillsborough-style inquiry because, as others have said, people affected by this do not have time on their side.
I must declare an interest as a barrister. I hope the public inquiry will ensure that public money is directed towards those who need it most, namely the victims and  their families, not towards massively expensive tribunal costs. I state that warning to any of my former colleagues in the legal profession.
I am conscious that some of my colleagues wish to speak in this debate, so I will finish by talking about  a school photograph that my constituent brought into a surgery. It was like any other school photograph—children smiling, and with teachers on either end of the row—but this photograph was different. It showed my constituent’s class at the special school he had to attend because of his medical condition. Eight of his school friends had haemophilia. Four of those eight are now dead as a result of contaminated blood infections, and another is so ill that, in his early 50s, he is forced to live in a specialist care home because of how his body has been left.
My constituent and the thousands of others we have heard about today are the victims of a terrible episode in our national life. They have fought for justice for 30 years, and I thank this Prime Minister and this Government for listening and acting. I hope this inquiry delivers answers for those affected.

Peter Heaton-Jones: This is also the first time I have had the pleasure of speaking in this House with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, so may I welcome you to your position? I also echo what has been said in thanking the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for being able to secure this important debate. Let me also say that it was a pleasure to be in the Chamber for the maiden speech by the hon. Member for Oxford East (Annaliese Dodds). I congratulate her on taking her seat.
I am not going to take up too much of the House’s time in this debate, but I want to draw the House’s attention to the case of a constituent of mine, one that I have raised in this House before; I have been fortunate to be called to speak on this issue in a number of different debates. My constituent Sue Threakall has been communicating with me for more than two years. She was one of the first people to come to me after my election in 2015 to raise this issue, and this was one of the first cases I decided to take up and follow. Other colleagues have made this point, but I, too, have to feel a sense of shame that I was not aware of the background to this story before I started to hear some of the personal testimony.
I merely intend to read out part of an email that Sue Threakall sent to me yesterday, when it became clear that this emergency debate was going to be held—I have been in constant touch with her. She asked me briefly to share with the House her story, and I am doing so because it says in more powerful words than anyone else could why it is so important that we have this full public inquiry. At the time of this email, we were not aware of the Government’s announcement, which I warmly welcome. I pay tribute to not only my hon. Friend the Minister of State, but the Prime Minister for driving this forward.
Let me share with Members what Sue Threakall wrote to me in her email yesterday:
“My husband, Bob Threakall, died in 1991, aged 47. Despite being a severe haemophiliac, he had lived a relatively normal life until he was given commercial blood products. Following that his health, and his life, followed a deep and dark downhill path.
He contracted Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C and HIV. He died a terrible death, which I believe was wholly avoidable.
He was NEVER informed about the risks known at the time of imported Factor 8.
He was NEVER told he had Hepatitis C, and indeed I only found out myself a few years ago.
His HIV test result was withheld from him for many months, thus leaving me at risk. I was fortunate...many women were not.
From Autumn 1990 until two days before he died, months later, with shadowing on his lungs and despite being at high risk of contracting pneumonia, he was left UNTREATED.
He never had the chance of seeing his eldest son married, nor met his grandchildren.
He didn’t see his middle son graduate from university.
He didn’t see his youngest son pass his 11 plus and go to grammar school.
Following his death our family basically fell apart. Grief sent us in different directions and for many years we were completely broken. The fallout is still there today, bubbling away, just below the surface.”
Sue writes in conclusion:
“It is my firm opinion, following campaigning and researching since 1985, that haemophiliacs were used as guinea pigs. I believe that, had people acted differently at the time, Bob, and so many others, would almost certainly be alive and well today.”
I found Sue’s email extremely moving, and I have repeated her words to the House today because they say better than almost any of the rest of us could why the decision that has been taken by the Government to hold this public inquiry is so welcome. I will be following this process carefully as it goes through to ensure that the form of the inquiry is the best it can be, so that victims and survivors, such as my constituent, can get the truth, fairness and justice that they deserve.

Esther McVey: Trust is the key word—trust and faith, if people have that, in the inquiry. Every story is different. My constituent, Barry Flynn, is a twin. His twin is not here, but on his behalf he wants to be able to trust the inquiry. He wants the victims to be heard and to decide the remit, and he wants their evidence to be taken. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the way to get trust?

Tom Pursglove: May I, too, welcome you to your new role, Madam Deputy Speaker? I am absolutely delighted. I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford East (Annaliese Dodds) on her brilliant maiden speech and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for being such a doughty champion of this issue in Parliament.
This debate has been conducted in a way we can all recognise as hugely positive. It has been very constructive, which I think is what people out there in the country would expect—they would expect us to conduct this debate responsibly because this issue very much affects people’s lives. I am acutely aware of that because one of my constituents who has been caught up in this tragedy is Sue Wathen, a local teacher whose husband is a councillor. They are friends I care about very much. Rather like several of my colleagues, I was shocked when, shortly after I was elected, Sue and Peter asked me to go around to their house, where they told me all about the things they had gone through and the difficulties that Sue was facing in trying to access the Harvoni treatment that she so desperately needed.
I know that Sue will be sat at home watching this debate and will welcome the Government’s announcement no end. Things went so disastrously wrong in the past and we need to get to the bottom of that. A particular shock to Sue was that she was diagnosed as having her condition after some 30 years. It was a bombshell: she was marking books in her office at school when she received the telephone call telling her that she had this condition.
The most welcome thing about today’s announcement is the firm commitment to ensure that the victims of this tragedy are properly listened to and are really involved in shaping the inquiry. There are lessons to be  learned from what happened with Hillsborough. It does not surprise me in the slightest that the Prime Minister is so committed to addressing this issue: we have seen her take up a number of injustices, of which Hillsborough is one example. I hope that we can get to the bottom of this particular tragedy. The victims know how it affects them on a day-to-day basis. They know what the consequences are for their families and they should be listened to and encouraged to help shape the inquiry.
One key point that I suspect will come up in these discussions in the weeks and months ahead is this issue of access to treatment. Unfortunately, from time to time, NHS bureaucracy gets in the way of people accessing treatments. In Sue’s case, we went through a multitude of dramas to get the Harvoni treatment that she so desperately needed. In the end, we were successful. I am very grateful to Ministers for all their efforts in helping to achieve that. I remember what Sue said to me when we first had that early conversation. She said, “I am not worried about compensation; I just want to get better.” There is a lot in that. These are all issues that the public inquiry should consider and address. I welcome it very much and look forward to the debates ahead.

Wendy Morton: Like other hon. Members, Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome you to the Chair. I also wish to put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for securing this debate. In the short time that I have been a Member of this place, I have been struck by her determination and perseverance with this campaign. Clearly, it is an issue that goes right across both sides of the Chamber. I also wish to thank and to recognise all those Members who are not in the Chamber today or who have perhaps moved on following the election for playing a part in this campaign. That includes David Cameron, who, at his last Prime Minister’s questions, said that he wanted more to be done on this very important issue.
This is a very important matter to many of us both inside and outside this House. As we have heard today, so many constituents have been affected by this issue and are still affected today. It was first brought to my attention about a year ago when a constituent came to my surgery, but the issue that she raised was slightly different. We have heard a lot of stories about victims and those who are suffering as a result of the contaminated blood tragedy, but this lady came to raise the issue of support for the spouses of those who have died from contaminated blood. She had a number of questions and concerns, particularly around the discretionary payment fund. In particular, she wanted to know exactly what her position was, saying that she felt as though she was in limbo when it came to her monthly payments.
This is a tragedy that means so much to so many people. Through no fault of their own, they have suddenly found themselves in hardship and really suffering as a result of what has happened. We know that this tragedy goes back to the 1970s and 1980s and that it is an issue that has spanned several Governments. It is a long-running issue, but for those families in my constituency and across the country, it is still a priority for them and  rightly so. From what we have heard from the Minister today and from the Prime Minister in her statement, I sense that it is still a priority for the Government as well. We should continue to provide support for those affected by this tragedy.
I am very conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will draw my comments to a close by saying that I hope that this inquiry brings together all the parties, including the families and the victims, because, after all the time that has elapsed, there are still families who want answers, and a sense of conclusion and closure to this tragic issue.

Simon Hoare: I, too, welcome you to your place, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have a confession, or an apology, to make: when I was first briefed on this issue, I put it into the “too difficult to deal with” category—perhaps it was too niche, too much of the past. It lacked a contemporary feel to it. I was wrong and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) has proved the point today, and she is to be congratulated on that.
Listening to this debate, I have been reflecting on the fact that so many of our constituents view this place through that very narrow prism of 30 minutes or so on a Wednesday. This debate has shown Parliament at its best—Members from across the parties with an interest in an issue coming together to try to find a solution. I welcome the words of the hon. Lady in relation to my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister. As a number of hon. Members have pointed out, many Ministers have listened, and just as many Ministers listened to the tragedy of Hillsborough. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister seems to have something in her essence, as she does not listen but decides to act in a fair, calm and sensible way, always in the pursuit of justice for our constituents and fellow citizens.
This issue speaks to a time long past—a different time for procedures, practices and medical processes. It certainly predates patients’ rights and, as a number of hon. Members have said, the devolution settlement, which will doubtless throw up challenges for the inquiry. However, it is also a contemporary issue, as it causes pain, suffering and anxiety, as many colleagues across the House have referenced. I strongly welcome the Government’s decision to move towards a single payment scheme. Having five silos to which people can try to apply and have to justify their needs to—my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) alluded to such cases—has added indignity to injustice.
Money is not everything, as a number of colleagues have said. Yes, the ill health unnecessarily—and probably avoidably—experienced by sufferers as a result contaminated blood means that they must bear greater medical costs as well as greater social and lifestyle costs. But the inquiry is crucial. I confess that I am sanguine, on a personal level, as to whether there should be a panel or a judge-led inquiry. If the latter—I agree entirely with the Minister that this has to be done in concert with the survivors to identify the best way—I hope that we can rally around the authenticity of the judge and not question their motivation or bona fides. The sufferers  do not have time on their side, and we must move forward quickly. This is a campaign that has festered too long.
I conclude by congratulating again the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North. I hope that people who are suffering, who are bereaved, who are in pain, or who are anxious today are in some way sustained and comforted by a brighter glimmer of the hope of justice at the end of the tunnel.

Suella Fernandes: I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for calling the debate and for her indefatigable campaigning on the subject. I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford East (Annaliese Dodds) on an excellent maiden speech; I am confident that it was the beginning of many excellent contributions in this Chamber.
Many colleagues on both sides of the House have been tireless in their advocacy for the victims of this unspeakable tragedy over many years. I am a relative newcomer to the issue, but I speak today on behalf of my constituent, Jackie Britton, who lives in Portchester. Jackie has met me on many occasions, for she, too, has not given up on this fight. She contracted hepatitis C in 1982 from a blood transfusion during childbirth, but she was only diagnosed in 2011. For many years, she has been afflicted with and has suffered from a debilitating illness. Her daughter has also been very ill with various medical conditions.
I am sure that Jackie would welcome today’s news about a public inquiry into this matter. It is clear that the Government are seriously reflecting the concerns and voices of those who have been tragically affected by the incident. The inquiry is the latest in a series of actions taken by this Government over several years. The Government have increased the amount of money spent on payments to victims to record levels since 2016, with an additional £125 million in support funding for those who need it. I am pleased that the Government announced last year that they would reform the package of support measures for those affected. For the first time, almost 2,500 beneficiaries with chronic hepatitis C were eligible to receive an annual payment of £3,500 a year. That progress results from listening and action on the part of the Government.
I will conclude my comments because I am aware that other colleagues want to contribute. There is nothing that anybody can do to change the past, and this awful incident and tragedy, but I hope, for the sake of Jackie and all those victims about whom we have heard today, that the inquiry—the process of discovering the truth and bringing some justice to those affected—will provide some solace and finality to this heartbreaking tragedy.

Diana R. Johnson: It is delightful to see you in your new place in the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Annaliese Dodds) on her maiden speech. That was an excellent start, and I am sure she will have a very long career in the House of Commons.
We have heard some really important and excellent contributions. I think we were all moved by the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) when she talked about Colin Smith—a little boy who received contaminated blood products when he was quite tiny, and who eventually died of AIDS and hepatitis C. That reminded us all that this is about boys and girls, husbands and wives, and brothers and sisters who have been affected by this scandal.

John Hayes: Although I do not want my sermocination to be excessive, I will deal with those matters at greater length in my later remarks. My hon. Friend is right to say that Britain can be justly proud of our record in respect of ATOL. To be clear, the Labour party acknowledged that on Second Reading a few days ago. There is an acceptance across the House that Britain has done this well; that that is recognised in continental Europe; and that there is a desire to ensure that future arrangements are inspired by, and perhaps even emulate, the best practice exemplified by the United Kingdom.
I said that I could go further still in building a bridge across the House, and that is because I am sympathetic to the aims behind the amendment. It is crucial that we  carefully craft our policy, and regulatory framework is the key to good governance. To gubernate is to be prepared to listen and learn, and it is absolutely right that we do so in respect of the changes that the Bill will make. It would not be fair to set any of this in stone, which is why I accept the need to consider these matters, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) set out, in the context of future changes to our relationship with Europe.
As I have said repeatedly, I am open-minded about reviewing the effects of these changes, but let me explain a little more. The Bill introduces the ability for ATOL to protect sales by businesses established in the UK and in other member states. It will be for protection schemes in other member states to provide the protections for UK consumers to which the amendment refers. Because that is not our responsibility—we do not have the power that the amendment suggests that we should have—I am not sure that the amendment works on a technical level.
The amendment does, however, highlight an important point, which it is right for us to consider. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman’s argument was twofold: first, that we need to understand the potential impact on UK consumers of purchasing from traders that are based overseas under different protection regimes; and, secondly, that we need to consider how Government should keep that element of protection under review. Let me deal with those points in turn.

John Hayes: In that punchy and pithy intervention, my hon. Friend made the point that I made when we debated these matters in the Committee considering the previous legislation of which this was originally a part. That is rather convoluted, but it makes the point. I said that the problem with an early review is that it would be too early and would not take account of the changing circumstances in exactly the way that she suggests. But I am minded to go further. Given that we discussed the issue in Committee on the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, I want to make two further points.
First, the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015—I have a copy with me for the benefit of any hon. Member who may wish to look at the particular clauses—makes a review obligatory within five years of the passing of the legislation. That existing obligation would of course apply to ATOL. However, we can do better than that. I am proud of my Department’s reputation for producing robust analysis to underpin and inform policy decisions, including providing full regulatory impact assessments to assess the effect of significant changes to regulation. That is a principle to which we have adhered in recent years throughout the ATOL reform process. We have already reformed ATOL once, in 2012, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East knows. We went through a consultation exercise, which I also have with me, and it is important that we continue the process of consulting and publishing the kind of impact assessments I have described before any regulatory changes take place.
It is really important that, when we changed the Civil Aviation Act 1982 in 2012 better to reflect current market practice, the call for evidence on the long-term review of the ATOL scheme produced responses that both informed the changes we made then—as they certainly did—and any further changes.

John Hayes: In the darkest recesses of the darkest places there is occasionally a glimmer of light, and so it is with the European Union. One would not want to claim that every single aspect of every single thing that has been done over all the years of its existence has been malevolent. There is the odd measure which may be said to have shed just a glimmer of light, and in that sense, my right hon. Friend may be right.
Let me move on. During an evidence session earlier this year, Richard Moriarty of the Civil Aviation Authority told the Committee considering the Vehicle, Technology and Aviation Bill that he hoped the Government
“will follow the practice that they have followed today: consult with us, consult the industry, do the impact assessment, and so on.” ––[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 65, Q150.]
For the reasons that I have given, the current process is one from which I will not deviate. We will ensure that any changes that are made after the passing of the Bill, or as a consequence of it, will be subject to that rigorous and transparent process; but I want to go even further in satisfying the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East, because even that is not enough for me.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Air Travel Insolvency Protection Advisory Committee, or ATIPAC, as it is commonly known. Earlier, I described darkness and glimmers of light in respect of the European Union. So it is with Labour Governments. It is a great mistake in politics to demonise one’s political opponents, because Governments of all colours do some things well and some things less well. All Governments introduce legislation that they subsequently regret, and omit to introduce legislation that they should. In grown-up politics and proper political debate—and this is a mature Parliament that is capable of such debate—we should freely acknowledge that.
In 2000, a Labour Government set up ATIPAC. Its purpose was to provide advice for the Civil Aviation Authority, the Air Travel Trust and the Secretary of State for Transport on policies that should be pursued to protect customers. It consists of representatives of industry, consumers, the CAA and Trading Standards, which means that it is well placed to provide an informed and independent review of policies. That committee already submits a substantial report to the Secretary of State each year. I have a copy of such a report, for the consideration and, I hope, education and enjoyment of any Member who may wish to cast an eye over it. The report includes drawing the Secretary of State’s attention to any concerns on which ATIPAC’s view is that further action is necessary to maintain strong consumer protection. This includes advice on changes in the market and, where appropriate, their potential impact on consumers and the financial protection arrangements.
I am sure—absolutely confident—that the committee is already minded to keep a close eye on the impact of the directive on UK consumers. However, in light of this amendment, the brief debate we have enjoyed and the responsible stance taken by those on the Opposition Benches—

John Hayes: On the pithiness index that you are clearly keeping, Mr Hoyle, that was not quite as pithy as my hon. Friend’s first intervention, but it is still pithy enough for me—and, I am sure, for you, My Hoyle, the ultimate arbiter of these things. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, of course: the committee, set up by a previous Labour Government, does indeed have exactly that purpose. It produces that annual report, which is a public document, but I have said that I would go further than that and request that that committee looks particularly at the very things this amendment seeks. So, not only are we going to have impact assessments and full and comprehensive consultations, not only have I committed to subjecting any further regulations to that kind of transparent and open debate with the appropriate scrutiny, and not only does the committee exist for the very purpose of producing an annual report in the interests of defending consumers in this field of work, but, further than that, I will to write to the committee to tell it that it should do exactly as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East has asked.

Bill Cash: My hon. Friend has quietly referred to the maps, but of course there are also the specifications and the limits of deviation. He knows perfectly well  how much all this involves. Can I have an assurance that, if required, all those things will also be made available in hard copy?

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Lady makes a good point. I am keen to ensure that, in a process that is so inequitable, with the state against the citizen and the citizen receiving very little help, we impress on Ministers and HS2 Ltd that there are people who need assistance to navigate and understand these documents. I feel passionately that they need to have that assistance. Had the hon. Lady seen people who are going to lose their house having to appear alone before a Select Committee of this House, with a silk—a QC; an expensive, highly paid  barrister—set against them, she would understand why I implore Ministers to make sure that suitable personnel are available to help people to interpret and access the documents. The shadow Minister asked for the telephone line to be free; I am going to go further: I want Ministers to ensure that that telephone line is manned by competent people who actually know what they are talking about and can guide people through the process easily. That is extremely important.
I am disappointed that there is currently no provision that will allow petitioners to petition electronically when the Bill is introduced—unless Ministers tell me differently. I had to bring petitions from constituents into the House myself, and they were charged £20 for the pleasure of defending their own properties, so I had to collect money and documents and bring them in to facilitate the process. My constituency is not far outside London; the people who will be affected by the phase 2 Bill live much further up the country. I would have thought Ministers would have considered how other MPs’ constituents who are going to be affected by phase 2 will be able to submit their petitions this time around. I implore Ministers to look into that, because that is a matter of priority. We should wipe out the £20 fee, which is neither fish nor fowl; it is an insult to the people who are defending their properties and want their voices to be heard and it certainly does not cover the costs of this exercise, so I hope it will be cancelled.
I have another question, on paragraph (f) of the motion, which the Deputy Leader of the House will notice refers to
“any requirement under Standing Order 4A(1), 27A(6) or 224A(8) relating to private business to make a document available for sale at prescribed offices, if it is made available for sale at an office in London.”
Will he assure me that that does not mean that London will be the only place that such documents will be on sale? When the Bill is introduced, phase 2 will affect people from Birmingham northwards, so would it not be more sensible to make the documents available in, for example, Birmingham and Manchester? That would be of more assistance to the people affected by the project.
I would like to know when the Bill will be introduced and when Second Reading is anticipated. When we have another hybrid Bill of this size and complexity that affects so many people, it is important that as much warning as possible is given by the Government and by HS2 Ltd and that all the information is readily available well in advance and with explanation so that people can get their heads around it. There is no doubt that there will be support for the phase 2 Bill from all parts of the House. Once again, there will be a very small number of MPs opposed to it or raising questions about it, but the Government need not be afeared that they will not get their business through. However, if they are to embark on a project of this size and complexity, I ask them please to learn from the lessons and the mistakes that were made on phase 1, and not to put the people on phase 2 through the same agonies. If we do not learn and we do not then take action, we are failing people in this country.

Paul Beresford: I thank my hon. Friend, who is, of course, on his way, with a bit of luck, to being a very senior academic psychiatrist in a couple of years. He is right. In situations such as this, no one rings up St George’s Hospital in Tooting and says, “Please could I have a psychiatrist?” They ring the Met police, who then have the difficulty of dealing with the situation, and who stand there holding the detainee in the private home while the psychiatrist is brought in from the hospital.
I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would at least be prepared to meet me and Professor Rix to discuss how this difficulty can be sorted out. If necessary, I am prepared to resort, as I have in the past, to the ten-minute rule Bill procedure to bring about this tiny change.